question was about the way we were working with the u.s-- pardon me? >> did imf find a problem in the u.s., and did you tell the u.s.- [inaudible] >> if we found something-- if we found something in the u.s., it is in the report which is called the article for because it is the fourth article which gives the right to give us kind of an inquiry in the country's economy. countries. then of course we don't have the authority to change ourselves what we feel does work in the economy on the other one as the country itself to move ahead. now the climate change, you're

right. it's very -- when i look at the mandate at least exists today. but on the other hand, the climate change problem can become a problem for many countries with carbon taxes implemented and negative consequences of trade and so on. so there are ways to which we are working on that. and i agree with y some innovative way has to be found to finance not only the grain economy but the climate change problem. the failure of the copenhagen meeting conference was not only partly a question the difficulties to agree on goals among the different players, but also behind this the fact that it is a huge amount of resources to do something attractive and, you know, people are talking

about a billion a year figure when you listen to what has been said by the main leaders in copenhagen that you have 1 million plus one plus one in 1015, but so it's another magnitude if we really want to address this problem it is as big for the future of mankind as many say and i do believe is true there we need to find more innovative ways of financing and certainly from this point of view the input of of the imf may be helpful. well, thank you very much. i'm sorry to keep peace so late. [applause]

the u.s. house returns tomorrow afternoon new economic stimulus totals are in, this week's market 11 months as president of, if the recovery act into law.

of the $787 billion allowed more than $315 billion have been committed to states. up to 2 billion from last week however $167 billion had actually been paid out for stimulus projects readore on c-span 2 board. dallas new media in politics. cnn white house correspondent ed henry joins a panel hosted by former journalist marvin kalb in this 50 minute discussion. >> it's my pleasure to introduce an old friend and friendly competitor who for many years when i was at abc and he was at cbs. marvin kalb is the james clark dwelling presidential hello at george washington university here. marvin is also the edward r.

murrow professor emeritus from the harvard kennedy school of government. and he appears frequently on npr and on fox as an analyst. marvin had a 30 year career at cbs and nbc. he was the chief diplomatic correspondent for cbs, for many years, prior two that had been the moscow correspondent you whe college students is the fact that marvin was actually in cambridge studying for a ph.d. when he got an opportunity to go to moscow for the state department. and that a year later than he was signed on her by cbs, the last correspondent hired by edward r. murrow, and so he went right from academia to the

firing line and was a brilliant cbs correspondent for so many years. later on in b.c. he was the moderator of meet the press. two peabody awards, that's the biggest in broadcast journalism, dupont prius overseas press club awards, too many to count, and a bunch of emmys as well. he has written 10 books. two of them were novels. one of them was co-written with ted koppel and it was a great spy novel, but i asked ted what time was the dumbest thing about writing the book and he said the sex scenes. after i had read the book i understood why. [laughter] marvin is currently working on a book on the american experience in vietnam and we're delighted to have him here this morning as one of our speakers. marvin. [applause]

>> thank you. let me start by telling you about the sex scenes. [laughter] ted and i were working on this book for about a year or two in zero ways to delaying handling this problem because both of us were felt rather uncomfortable and yet our publisher was telling us that if we really wanted to make it big you had to have a sex scene. he called it the oss -- the obligatory sex scene. so i said to ted in your so much smarter than i, why don't you write it? and he said, you are taller than i, why don't you write it? [laughter] and i said, well, you have four children, i only have to. [laughter] which means you are twice as good at it. so why don't you write it? so finally he rode it and he gave it to me.

it was awful. it was really awful. so i didn't call him back. and he called me and he said it is it that bad and i said, yes. [laughter] i'm not sure what happened with that, i think was have been when they embraced we almost like a camera turned to the window where a breeze came through and that was that. so the book sold maybe another 20,000 copies so what the heck. ladies and gentleman, i am happy to be here and i thank you for the invitation. how many of you have been journalists either in college, secondary school, summer time, any of you? good, okay, then you may be ahead of the track from where i am because i have been asked to speak about the ethics of journalism. as i was driving here this

morning i realize my fundamental problem is i no longer know what journalism is. so you can all think that you've got a grasp on it. i thought i had a grasp on its. and no longer do and the reason that i don't is that the craft has changed so dramatically. the in recent years that it's impossible to know exactly what it was, what is, and where is going. and i admit to my difficulty up front with you with. when steve and i worked in this business, i think we each knew who we were and what our responsibilities were a. today i find it very difficult when i watch cable news particularly to find out who's a journalist arm. for example of can i say with

both candor and certainty that larry king is a journalist? and i cannot. and yet news is committed on his program. they're people who come onto his program and actually make news so you can say, if news is made in their then why isn't he a newsman in in a way he is. it is that the same thing as ted koppel or steve bell of working as reporters covering wars, covering political campaigns and the answer has to be known. there is a very marked difference. so then what is the difference? how is one to define who is a reporter is? and until you can howl is one to define a set of ethical values that is ascribed to that kind of work? if you are covering a war, there

is a certain kind of ethics bills in to the very craft of war reporting. likewise politics, but if you are the host of a programming or if you have spent most of your life as a politician, and then you lose a race, what happens? these days you generally go into television and. a former governor of alaska is now going to become an analyst on fox. now, i do some of that for fox so i have to say immediately that i am not sure that this represents an increase in the journalistic value of talks. but it does probably almost certainly, in fact, add to the ratings potential at fox. therefore what we are talking about here is bringing on the

personalities. largely political personalities with who have done a great deal of work in a certain business of politics. into a world of communication. into the world of the media. and then we somehow or another believe that therefore they be, news people. well, forgive me, but i reject that. i don't think is right in any way. but there are ethics involved in the craft of journalism. and i would like to talk to you a little bit about that. does a reporter have a right to to report to everything that he or she knows? if a reporter is covering as i

did. i think steve, i'm not sure, covering let's say the wording been on many years ago. and you came upon a bit of information. i know this for a fact, i will not mention the reporter's name, a television journalist well-known walked into a bar in the inane and met here with a young american pilots who told him simply because he recognized him as somebody had seen on television, he told them serve you know it's very interesting to morning we are going to go off on a bombing raid over hanoi. at the time the u.s. was not bombing hanoi and the president was saying we don't want to expand the war. and yet here was a young pilot saying tomorrow morning i am going off to bomb hanoi.

what is the ethics involved in the reporting of that story? let me suggest something and we will get to the q and a you can come in with your own point of view, on the one hand, a reporter who has most of the time, most of the time a right to report the information that he or she has. so long as you are a fairly persuaded that the information is accurate. and you try to presented fairly. but does that repoire have a right to put out the information that this young man is going to be taking off in an american fighter plane the next morning to bomb hanoi? i would say no. it is a heck of a good story, you are breaking something quite new, the u.s. is expanding the

war and beginning to bomb the capital of north vietnam. this particular reporter did not report that story. i think he did the right thing. let us say in another circumstance less dramatic and politicians on capitol hill, this did happen to me, following a meeting at the senate foreign relations committee came to me as we were walking out and said, marvin, this is off the record, but let me tell you that the democratic majority is going to try to move a resolution condemning this particular aspect of policy. i said thank you, senator, thank you very much. i walked away. he had said this was off record. now we are all clear -- i have to go to a close year -- off the record means you're not to use the information under any circumstances off the record. there is then on the record

which means go with it as best if you wish. then there are two intermediate categories. one is background and one is deep background into a government official in the city says to a reporter this is on background what the official really means is use the information but don't quote me. you can say u.s. officials plural, getting from one person, u.s. officials say x, y enzi. you can use that formula. that's acceptable. if the source says to you this is on deep background. that means in iraq you can use the information, but to use it on your own. you can ascribe it to no one. in other words, you write a sentence that is the feeling here at washington that --.

then you use the information. if you wish to do that remember you are assuming the information that is right. wisely you eject before hand now when that center gave that to me i assumed it was off the record and walk away and did not use it in my piece that night. only to get a call from him the following morning saying, why didn't you use that? i gave it to you to use. i wanted that on the air. and i said but senator you said it was off the record. he said, don't be hung up on terminology like that. if i'm giving you information use it. but then it's the reporters responsibility, should it be the reporters responsibility to figure out whether the information is of a sort that he the reporter can figure out and use. last night, i'm absolutely

booked on the old mysteries and so why was watching a movie called north side of 777. jimmy stewart, about 50 years ago. it is about a reporter who approaches a story at first with extreme skepticism. he writes it but doesn't think it is right at all. the information that he's writing is right, but he doesn't think this particular person is innocent. and then halfway through the movie he becomes persuaded that he is innocent. then he begins to write stories geared to proving the innocence of this man. but he doesn't know that the person is innocent, he's just writing it. did he as a reporter ethically do the right thing? know. because he was writing a story and putting his name out on top

of that story suggesting that he believed this person was innocent when he did not have the evidence that he was. so you can argue it very easily with that in the ethics comes in with it the knowledge that the story is absolutely, ready for broadcast or newspaper. but is that enough? is there not a moral dimension that goes along with the reporting of then use? don't we also have an inner moral compass that says this is really beyond the pale, we really should not be going down that way. and all i can say is that over the years as the distinction has broken down between a clear-cut

reporter and the table host, all under the umbrella of the media, in introducing enormous confusion in people's minds and i don't blame them, it's understandable that there would be the confusion because you're not sure of the product you're working with. if you get to a certain point where you feel a story isn't right, you should simply tell your editor i can't do this. example: during the iran hostage crisis, there was a moment early on in that crisis when six americans were actually not to being held at the american embassy, held by revolutionary guards at the iranian regime at the moment, but being held in

the canadian embassy. it doesn't seem like a big deal out, but it was then. there were six lives involved. i have that story and i think that larry and nbc have that story, i'm sure somebody at abc had the story too. but i called up cronkite that night and said the, this is the information, absolutely accurate. but i can't do this story, it's beyond the -- i don't think it's right to jeopardize the lives of these six people. by sen, however, you guys. and this is the information into which you with which wicked and cronkite's thought about it really for two seconds before i got off the phone and he said, we're not going to do it, let it sit there and somebody else can have it. we didn't do that because we didn't feel in the right to

broadcast information that might jeopardize lives. and i think that becomes a cutting edge issue in all reporting of national security. the ethanol line where one is if there is a danger that you may jeopardize lives you don't go with a story. and i think that makes a very good sense. and i think by the way that most reporters do that too, the washington post's of major newspaper in d.c. comes upon information regularly that it does not publish. and it does not publish the information because it doesn't like good stories because it doesn't feel it is right. two go with it and how you define that sense of right? very hard to figure out in my knowledge right now from the very beginning that we're dealing with categories when we talk about the ethics of

journalism that are very fuzzy. both on the ethical side and on the definition of journalism side. let me now speak for just a couple of minutes about one subject i care very deeply about connected with to what i've just said and that we open to questions. i've been a journalist for an awfully long time and i'm very proud of that profession. ngwee i've spent a good many years overseas. after a while, you get to know those countries that are freeing would, relatively free, and those that are dictatorships or dictatorial nature. we will call them authoritarian. for a moment. and you can tell by the way

which is which and i just going to a local news stand. walking to a kiosk and just look at the newspapers in front of you, the magazine's, and i submit that you can tell almost immediately whether that kiosk exists in a country that is a very, sort of free, dictatorial or authoritarian. how? you can take a look at the newspapers, they all tend to look alike. they are all reporting essentially the same story and not just that, but reporting it the same way. one and on the faces, the covers that exist on magazines and journals they're always the faces of the leaders of a dictatorship, almost every single magazine. it will have the picture of the

dictator juan. we're as if you go to a new stand in this country and you can buy a tabloid which will have one kind of headline and emphasis and let us say "the new york times" which will have another one you can see immediately by the face of journalism what the essence of the political system is. and i maintain that a free press which, if read vibrant but occasionally even irresponsible press is in the essence of a free library and occasionally irresponsible and democracy. and that the two go hand in hand. if you have a free press you're going to have a free and open system and if you begin to clamp down on the press you're going to find that you're political freedoms are going to be cut

down as well. and my concern at the moment particularly after coming from such an elegant and eloquent panel as you just been exposed to, i represent obviously a different generation but also a different mission of journalism. to meet in is not sacred but it is a calling, it is something very special, is as i said a moment to go from being the essence, the literally nectar oven and open and free society. when due to the explosive force of the new technology we have a journalism that is much wider, it exposes more people to more information than we have ever had before and that is a good

thing, it is at the same time information that is presented in, that is very thin. it goes across the spectrum but not deeply. it goes across the spectrum in a shallow way. and it also goes across the spectrum in a way that at the borders there is a fuzziness between substantive content that is a real and political opinion. that is opinion and. that should be in a straight news story, should not be in a straight news story. so i worry deeply that where we are going in journalism today is to lose our soul in pursuit of profit, that is understandable and that may be unstoppable given the way revolutions take

place particularly in technology. but that doesn't necessarily make a good thing. and because you are all -- because of your age -- going to live with this for the rest of your lives, it becomes your responsibility to make absolutely sure that you are not losing the soul of the business which by my lines is the soul of a democracy. so i am finished with my basic picture -- pitch but we do have a lot of time for a few questions and by the way we can wander well beyond anything that i've been talking about. [applause] thank you. if you wanted to stand up i will recognize you've. there is a microphone and right in the middle. >> my name is andrew from north carolina central university. you discussed the idea of ethics

and, in our opinion, have ethics changes with a year since beginning of journalism? >> has exchanged over the years in the answer is, yes, because well as those trying to say before while i might have had a standard of ethics that i would apply to a new story in the 1960's and '70s and '80s, that my necessarily be appropriate to judge a new stories value today or the performance of the reporter in getting that story. so the ethics have become a bit fuzzy along with the definition of journalism. so has the change? absolutely. should a change? well, this is a flight of fancy -- so long as the journalist knows that he or she is presenting information believed

to be accurate, presenting it in a fair way come i think the ethical impulse is two go with the story so long as the dozens of fact -- so long as it doesn't affect and potentially might not act human life in the military situation. >> thank you. ..

>> again, by my ethical standards, i probably would not have run the pictures. i might've select did a picture that's conveyed the essence of the awfulness of the story, without showing too much got got and gore. listen, if you write a good dori story, you're going to convey the awfulness of that kind of event. and i don't think it is necessary to go too far with the pictures. there used to be an issue that came up on television all the time in my day. and that was since our major

program, cbs evening news with walter cronkite went out at 630 or seven and maybe in the middle of the country at 5:30 or 6:00 neared a roughly in that timeframe which was dinnertime. so long ago she was asking the question. the really gory picture. do we put this on while people are having their dinner? and the question quite often with no. now, in recent years and again, you know, don't want to give you an old fogey visual of reality. but that's what i'm giving you. but increasingly, there's more of the gore on television that is acceptable staff. more newspapers are putting in gory pictures because that is become the acceptable thing. most stories about the private lives of public officials are in newspapers now because that is

become worthy and acceptable. is that the right thing to do? that's a separate issue these days. it's almost anything goes. but appreciate and thank you for the question. >> thank you. >> i am back from texas and yesterday my small-group went to rollcall and we were in the meeting with this reporter there at rollcall and i posed the question if lives were at stake, would you publish a story? and his response to me, which shocked me, was that's not my job. that's not my problem. and do you think it's because of reporting like that that is contributed to the negative perception of media in recent years? >> are you asking specifically whether as a reporter i have the

responsibility to judge the impact of my story when it's published? >> while that can do you think it is that mindset that is contributed to the negative perception of the media today. >> yes, of course it is contributed to the negative perception. alas i am old enough to remember the time when a vice president spiro agnew who was the first vice president for richard nixon did a series of broadcast attacking television news. and he was the first to give that idea of the media cachet, the media, that word that embraces everything from journalism to public relations. and he also conveyed the impression that the people in the media were really a special

elite group of northeast intellectuals. he didn't quite say harbored by the meant it. if you come from the northeast and you're a graduate of harvard that makes you an american. and he conveyed that impression because there was the beginning a strong opposition to the vietnam war, the part of the american people. and they blamed the reporters for instigating that reaction. i think it was since that time that the public perception of the media shifted from essentially positive to unfortunately, i do want to say essentially negative, because i don't think that's true. but certainly a negative impression is they are.

and the more that journalists go for the jugular, go for the headline, go for the got your kind of journalism. in my view, the more there will be a diminution in the degree of public respect for journalism. and it goes back and it goes back to my central point again. if journalism loses its centrality, it's important, its purpose, we all suffer. our political system is assured to suffer. so somehow the journalist had to get his act together. and i think the sooner the better. thank you very much for the question. >> good morning, professor. i'm from southfork university in boston. >> i know it well. we pass at

almost every day. >> my question for you is, how would you change the media today to perhaps make it more ethical and abiding by a stronger more compass bennett has? >> that is the toughest question to answer because it puts me in a position of having to acknowledge that deep down i fear. and that is that the combination of the new technology -- and i don't want to repeat i respect it and if they are. but the combination of the new technology in the drive for greater profit produced an explosive negative force which undermines the purpose of journalism and likewise

introduces into our democratic system a coarseness and an unfairness that we see expressed on almost every type program that we see or listen to. i do not see at the moment how journalism makes its way out of this. honestly, i don't. i wish i did because it would leave you with a more up defense. and i would like to do that, but i have to be honest with you. i don't see it at the moment. maybe it will have been. i hope it will have been for the reason i've always said ten times. i hope it will happen. i just can't find how that's going to get started unless all of the young journalist who come in, filled with idealism and enthusiasm and energy have the guides at the same time to ask

their editors why? is the editor is moving them in a direction they feel uncomfortable. because if it is uncomfortable, there has to be a reason for that. maybe a wrong evening raising the question, but at least by asking the question you air the problem. i think that in another solstice in advance. the more we can discuss this, the more we can have these the more we will be better off. people will be more aware of the problem and then ask themselves, without am i losing something? is there something i ought to be doing as a citizen. so the problem for everybody. it's a journalist problem, a citizen problem, a national and political problem. >> thank you. >> okay. >> jonathan from state

university. i want to know what your opinion on the edward bernstein did to lead to the downfall of the nixon presidency? >> wow, i have enormous regard for both of those reporters. and bob woodward continues to amaze me. he continues to produce these extraordinary books, presidents and secretaries of states of defense, when they're in power both very critical of woodward. but when they leave power, they all read those books and try next time he calls to be available and to share some of their stories within. what watergate did with the reporting of woodward and bernstein did was make an often tedious job of investigative

journalism exciting. because the stories themselves, each one of them was not a block closer. they were little pieces of a large jigsaw puzzle. and they were putting it together piece by piece. they didn't have the story. it was a gut sense on their part that this is going up pretty high and it may get to the white house. but if it does reach into the white house, before we print that, we really have to have the evidence. and so on the part of the editor and the publisher of the "washington post," it was an extremely difficult decision and a gutsy decision because sometimes the evidence was not absolutely they.

it seemed to be moving to a conclusion but it wasn't there. and of course the u.s. government at that time under president nixon asked the attorney general to put out an injunction to stop the "washington post," which could have been a direct interference with freedom of the press. so the supreme court ruled the right way a week or two later. it all happened very, very quickly. the impact of the story was enormous. it led to the toppling of the government, to the resignation of a president, two steps of almost certain impeachment. it put the country into a terrible tailspin. and i would submit that we are still not out of that.

and it ignited in young journalist to believe that they could automatically be calm a woodward or bernstein. so i'm the one hand, the excitement into doing investigative reporting is very good. the over excitement that you've actually be woodward or bernstein overnight was very distraught days. at the shorenstein center at the kennedy school, we give a prize every springtime to the best of investigative reporting. and i have to tell you that with all of the economic and technological problems now facing newspapers across the country, i am always so happy to receive 100, 110, 115

submissions every year, really first-class investigative reporting. first-class. and then it becomes extremely difficult for us to have to make a selection as to which one of these is the best. and i always end up when we get down to the last five i always say you can choose any of these five. it almost doesn't matter. so we give out five prizes. but my point is that investigative reporting is still there. it is essential. i'm delighted it continues. its impact, the woodward bernstein stories were profound. a really profound. there've been many books written about them and there will be many more. and i hope even more movies. they are just part of our culture. it's important. thank you. >> good morning. my name is alex from suffolk university. my question is, do you think that with the emergence of such

media as c-span, is it now unethical for congressional leaders to hold negotiations over major bills off the camera? >> this is an issue that is, ben has been posed by the republican side up on capitol hill in order, i think, to grab onto something as c-span would like very much to do, which is to get its camera and everywhere on capitol hill. but on the other hand, there's clearly a political motivation in all of this and an embarrassment of the president is also a political goal. i answer that on two levels. on one level, theoretical and on the other level, practical. on the theoretical side i totally agree that there should be as much coverage as possible and therefore all committee meetings are to be open to the

public, therefore open to c-span cameras. and as far as that goes, fine. however, that is not the way legislation is made. it's very much like the production of sausages, which you don't ever want to see. because you'll never read one. legislation comes about in a formal way, which is more or less what we see, but most of the deals are made privately. and they are made privately because they are deals. if you take this, i give you this, look if the senator from nebraska got a great deal for his people. senator nelson, he might have -- he was in a position, one senator, senator lieberman from

connecticut was in a position to destroy the health care bill. now, can you actually take a picture of senator reid, the majority leader pleading with senator nelson. you know, then i'll give you this if you give me that. as a practical audit, you're not going to see that. but that is at the heart of politics. so the camera can expose a lot in form. and a lot of it conveying some of the essence of politics, but not all of it because politics is dealmaking and dealmaking is done largely on a private basis. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning, sir. my name is patrick from suffolk university in boston, massachusetts.

during president obama's campaign, a famous quote was taken from first lady, michelle obama, during a speech. and she said quote, for the first time in my adult lifetime i'm really proud of my country. i do believe that this quote was taken out of context? >> yes, yes they do. and it was taken out of context largely to make a political point, to be as damaging as possible to the obama campaign. now who would want that to happen? obviously the republicans running against obama. that becomes unfortunately increasingly part of the american political campaigning. it doesn't make it right, but it does make it obvious. it's just the way it is. what i believe she was saying, and as she explained it later, as an american black, she

suffered, she felt considerably in different ways. which she is ticked off, which in fact her husband has ticked off in a more direct way than she. she did talk about that. she was simply saying, wow, something that is happening now is so extraordinary that and then she overstated the case. but do i believe that that was the first time the michelle obama was proud of her country? no, i think she'd been part of the country probably for a lot longer than that and for many more reasons than not. but just listening to her talk about her family and about her father, working for the post office. no, i think that she was very proud american who in her choice of words and in the way in which he was picked up perhaps overstated something.

>> thank you. >> okay. >> thank you for being here. and lydia witts president of the association at miami dade college. i see that you are a good man, but you have always been able to stand firmly underground, refusing to a report if it is against her aspects and could say no to certain reports jeopardize our job? >> i thought about this many times. i would like to say that i think most of what i have done over many, many years was professionally found sound. the motivation was clean. i was, as steve can attest, a very competitive reporter. and i think at the same time, reasonably good and i hope you

fare. but over the years i have thought about one thing. and i'm still not quite sure the answer. but let me share it with you. i heard up and still cross say the other day that i was a child of the cold war. quote, unquote. and after he said it, was thinking about it and i to was very much a child of the cold war. in other words, when the cold war got started in earnest in the late 1940's, we became very much a war that in the 1950's the united states of the soviet union were locked in to an existential crisis. it was a sort of stable crisis over the years, but a crisis nonetheless. we chatted a enormous nuclear

power. we each have the ability to destroy the other country. and tonight, destroying most of the world. so we produced what was called a balance of terror, were both leaders on both sides, whenever there was a real crisis did not ever want to be pushed to a point of having to use nuclear weapons. and that governs the way we thought about our policy in almost every part of the world. now as a reporter in that environment, and as they moscow correspondent, and i remember i was the moscow correspondent during some of the most acute berlin crises, during the cuban missile crisis, and a number of

others as well in the middle east. i believe now that i thought then that in pursuing my story, i wanted us to win. i didn't want the soviet union to gain and manage over the united states. i don't know that i literally wrote stories in order to accomplish that. i doubt it. but i do now and i think now but it must've been in my mind. i was anti-communist and remain so. and i want it, as i said i wanted the united states to win. so if there was a story during the cuban missile crisis in which i could write that the

soviet union was aggressively pursuing an anti-american policy, i would do that without too much thought. but supposing the evidence than the other way, supposing the evidence word that the united states was pursuing a policy, anti-soviets, that really went over the line. what i have done the same thing? what i have reported it the same way? probably, but i'm not sure. and this is an issue that has been in my mind over the years, in recent years because i'm right now in the midst of writing a book about how american presidents viewed the vietnam war, during the war, and then since the war how they viewed the legacy of the vietnam war. and we see that in president obama is handling of afghanistan. he had vietnam in mind.

and so i find the book filled with valiant points and interesting stuff. but it forced me again to think back to those early days of truman and eisenhower and kennedy and johnson. and was i being as absolutely balanced as i could've been? i hope i was. but i'm really not sure. but thank you for that question. >> thank you. >> though we have about five, or should we wrapped up? okay. [applause] >> thank you so much. [inaudible] >> thank you, sir. and we thank martin for his participation this morning and

this concludes our regular meetings. and you've been a great group. all of you in our tv audience, this is the washington center seminar and it's a wonderful experience for college students from 60 colleges and universities around the country and were all delighted to be part of it and we thank you very much. [applause]

>> international rescue teams do research for earthquake survivors in haiti. the u.s. southern command says 2200 u.s. marines arrived there today with medical supplies to continue with rescue operations. these are rescue workers in port-au-prince carine survivors of the earthquake rubble. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[speaking in native tongue] [inaudible conversations]

>> u.n. central keeneland suggested that they increase the u.n. mission in the included police and u.s. troops. [inaudible conversations] conve] >> tuesday, your chance to talk to the authors of the best selling, james caines. >> now a look at the palestinian role in middle east peace talks. we begin with a 40 minute conversation between turkey and the president who was deputy secretary of state during the

clinton administration and former world bank president and u.s. envoy to gaza, james wolfensohn. [inaudible conversations] >> wonderful of so many of you to turn out this afternoon for a conversation that could hardly be more timely. and could hardly be better served for purposes of a good and informative and forward-looking discussion than by the gentlemen to my right was a personal friend and institutional find, a trustee of this institution and has some other credentials than they can just the right person to get us started on the topic of how to

secure the future, the palestinian youth. jen and i are going to engage in a bit of a dialogue for a few minutes. the beginning and will turn it into a multi-log involving as many of you as possible. and in about 40 minutes or so, will turn the program over to an excellent panel that dissemble dear. and will to thank our colleagues which has been helping us put this event together and subsequent ones still to come. i won't introduce the panel now. i would however like to say to congressman allison, what a pleasure it is to see him back here at brookings. he's been a frequent visitor here and will be better for it. i look forward to listening to this afternoon. i don't think i need to go on at too much length about jim wilkinson background.

>> good. >> well, we'll just stop right there. he's come to talk to us about fencing this afternoon, export from his youth which is taken up again in middle-age. >> early middle age. >> right. in addition to be an athlete and an olympian, he has also been of course the global public servant. he was back in his capacity as the president of the world bank and then in 2005, 2006, he was the special envoy for the quartet, working on the middle east in general and the issues and challenges of gaza in particular. subsequent to that, he as a brookings trustee has enabled us here at work aims to start though both of them on commerce

which has allowed us to have them hike impact on way once is the middle east initiative which the wilkinson center is conducting a partnership with dubai school of government. what i thought i might do to get the conversation started is to ask jim to reminisce a little bit with the list in hindsight. and i remember being with him in jerusalem in 2006 india the wisdom of foresight as well. that was a rather critical moment in his work on god and he was very, very concerned about the connection between the economic restrictions on gaza and will likely to be the political developments, both in gaza, among the palestinians and between the palestinians and israelis.

so jim, may be recalling that time of jerusalem you could look back a little bit and see what to think of the principal lesson far, especially as they apply to the situation today, a year after the worst of the military at dignity, but there have been of course a troubled system in the headlines last couple days as well. >> thank you very much. to take you back to those days and allow me to reminisce, the situation was calm as you will recall that there was great tension between israel and the west bank in turkey and coushatta. and one of the act to the d's in which the quartet was involved, the quartet to being the united states russia, the u.n. and the european union was to try and see if we could help in any way to unlock this difficult situation. it was really no thanks to my

efforts are indeed the court to bet he decided the first step in what he wanted to do was to withdraw from gaza. and that was a momentous decision. and at the time, seemed to be full of hope. it was a time when, as you will recall, the million plus people in gaza were negotiated with in terms of the withdrawal and the 7000 or so israel is that where they are, were largely involved in thought was production, were given the opportunity or rather encouraged to leave, including we been the hot assays. but the bottom line is it was essentially there was to be this withdrawal and the israelis were

to leave and one way or another we raised a bit of money to pay the owners of the hothouse is to leave them there and there was for a time production by the palestinians in those hot positive. the hope was that i would be an industry that would allow for an income in area and for some material benefits for the palestinian population. and that we could move forward thereafter. and with the arrival some months later of hillary clinton. you may remember there was -- not hillary clinton, the secretary of state came over and i see the former council general is here, so you will remember. there was an understanding

reached between the israelis and the palestinians in relation to a forward-looking economic viability for gaza, which included a port, which included an airport, which included access and egress from the country and movement from gaza and the west bank, a bus service on all the things we had hoped for. in the event, at that moment of a grievance in which the secretary made the announcement and then moved on, the tragedy of the situation was that none of it lasted for very long. and the situation collapsed with violence on both sides and essentially the creation of what

now exists in worse born in the closing off of gaza and the isolation of the residence. it's now at peak, as you know, with very high unemployment and with little or no it diggity come, with access and egress for good basically through tunnels. it is a very unhealthy situation and worse than not, within the context of the million people that are in gaza and the 2.3 million palestinians that are in the west rank, there is now a division as they think you know between hamas and fatah so that there is a dichotomy of equal. so we now have a situation that in that of the dream that we hoped for and some of us i think been back of gaza would be the

leader of you know he went to a new way, where lives and the situation has eroded to the current situation. that's a very brief history of what happened as a result. and so, now we're faced with a situation where the dream of a united palestine with talk of the nation nation had. prime minister netanyahu made an announcement that was a surprise to me that he would accept a two state solution of palestinians and israelis, subject to a couple of conditions. one of was that there would be limited military capacity over part of the palestinians and

that the issue of immigration would be taken off the table in terms of the right of return and israel are palestinians and there was a third element, which was to be the unity of jerusalem in which at least there was an opening for discussion, in terms of the holy places and in terms of potentially of some sort of division, that the two key positions were. so we're now in a situation where very sadly we have from that dream a situation which is unfortunate with a division between the palestinian people, with anxiety about gaza, between israel and the palestinians

strobe was telling me there was some violence in the last few days which i missed. and we are and now where we are with this sort of offer or willingness on the part of the private administered at yahoo! to negotiate and difficulty with you to negotiate with and what are the terms on which it can be convinced. in taking a predictable position in relation to settlement and in relation to further encroachments as he seated by the the israelis in palestinian territory. with really a standoff. all within the context of a much broader middle east set of issues than we had a few years ago. with iran been of course measured with a sunni shia which is not trivial and which i've

very serious political implications. and it's taken a minute to tell you this, maybe longer than i showed, that as those of you who know the area, no it's not some complicated. and i try to do it as quickly as they could. >> jim, you mentioned having worked closely well with the previous administration, the bush administration. that administration got some criticism when it first came into office and later for not engaging with the israeli-palestinian conflict. certainly that is something that the obama administration cannot be accused of, but it has gotten some criticism for having engaged at the get go, but not having been able to develop much traction. what's your own assessment of how the obama administration has handled the situation and its

first year? >> i think the initial statements were timely, accurate, and correct. it was to say this is one of the key issues that we need to resolve, that were going to get into it and we need to deal with it and they appointed and not moral person in george mitchell to be the center point of this and gave him i think and continue to give him appropriate backing. my own judgment is that events broader events have pushed that more into the background then perhaps they would've hoped originally. we have had an extension of the problems, which the president inherited starting before, but certainly made visible in september of the year before with the lehman brothers crisis, which was the visible symbol of

the most recent and serious economic downturn, which has prevailed during the course of last year with negative growth in our countries are the first time in 60 years. and combined with that, the involvement of american forces in afghanistan, the combination of their activities overseas and in terms of events and expenditures and accumulating budget deficits, a 10% plus unemployment and probably a combined on a planet of 16%, 17% at a minimum. and when you're president of the united states and you're looking at the range of problems, i think you'd have to say that those problems certainly on the face of it are more significant than 11 million people combined with the israelis and the palestinians in a city of 350 million arabs.

notwithstanding the importance to all of us about that particular issue and notwithstanding the fact that when you talk to israeli and palestinian friends, they perceive this as being the center of the universe. it is not the center of the universe. and event around it have really made this particular ratio, which is becoming more and more specialist issue in my book is just not getting the attention. now recently, the secretary of state has announced that they're going to come together. i saw the ambassador to the u.n. two days ago, which he made some comments at a gathering that i was that in which he said they are quite serious about moving forward to try and resolve this, highly consistent with the statement made by secretary clinton. but i think george mitchell at the moment is having some difficulty in formulating the way forward and we're all

waiting for that magic set of statements, which will include support by syria arab countries and all the things we all hope for, which have not yet appeared. so, with ease tension and violence in relation to gaza, with the economic drama and gaza with the split between gaza in the west bank, notwithstanding a substantial easing, which i've seen with my own eyes in the west bank recently in terms of movement and activity. and i think you'd have to say that the future is uncertain, though i'm thrilled that the statements are being made that this will again be given high priority. >> jim, since the word used figures both prominently in the name of the initiative that the

wolfensohn center is doing and the topic of our discussion this afternoon. would you and then after this will open it up to all of you. would you just reflect a little bit about what your motivation was for wanting to concentrate as much on youth as you have done, both when you were working as a special envoy and also subsequently. and if i could just append to that, a question that is puzzling, disturbing, and timely. and that is the issue of terrorism and in particular, suicide bombing. this is a phenomenon of our time in which youth has no monopoly. palestinians have no monopoly, arabs have no monopoly. it's a global problem, but it's young arab suicide bombers are a big part of that phenomenon. and how do you relate that to

the nexus of politics and economics that you've been concentrated on and gaza? >> well, i think that's a great question and it's at the core of stability i think in the middle east and in many other places. i think in coming years also in africa, where we will have a population by 2050 of 2 billion people with half of them were more young. >> and the most famous recent would-be suicide bombers from africa. >> that's exactly what i was just about to say. we're talking about a global issue. we're not just talking about an air of ratio or the issue of frustration of you. the situation in the middle east which were addressing is that there are roughly 350 million arabs in the region of whom

100 million are give or take between the ages of 15 and 25. and you may be maybe 130, 140 million are under the age of 50. do you have more than 65% under the age of 25. now in the cohort, 15 to 25 looking for work, my colleagues afterworld will no doubt get better numbers than i have, but if you say that there are four or 5 million of these young people who need jobs every year, the generation of jobs which is not too great anyway when you take out government service or even if you include it. it still leaves somewhere between two to 2.5 million of these young people unable to find work. and so you have a continuous addition to the corps of unemployed, delays in the ability of young people to get

married. delays in their ability to earn a livelihood, which would permit them. and not surprisingly acute frustration, given the murray's and customs of the region. and it is to lessen the work that we are doing here and which we've been joined now in dubai and qatar where we have centers of research and we put that 11 countries. this issue is not just an issue of specialties. this is an issue which is at the very core of economic and social stability, as you could imagine in our country care if we had 30%, 40% of our young people not able to get work every year and it was increasing, we would have a hell of a problem. well that's exactly what were finding in the middle east. so the question i've jobs which is the first part of what strobes i'd is really crucial in

terms of economic. i think of many of you know, the society is generally in the middle east not orderly in the sense of giving everybody an opportunity to move up the chain. there is in many of the country a select group, which has more fortunate than the group below to put a elliptic way, but it's quite rare. so we have these societies which to start with are vulnerable in terms of young people who are looking for more democratic environment. and men without jobs, and you quickly get to the point, which is the second part of the three's question which for young people who are frustrated, their opportunities to either stick with it and keep going or there is an immediate sense of violent

reaction. and that the violent reaction is one not can be focused and they can be put within a context of religious belief that violent action which leads to job is not the worst thing in the world that can happen to you because of what will happen in the afterlife, even if you get a few people that believe that, you have a very dangerous structure. and what we've seen lately is that the combination of frustration and anger, lack of opportunity and a sense that life now is less good than maybe life hereafter. do you have a combination, which is pretty dangerous.

and i'm afraid that is what we now have in the middle east with the frustrated use and in some countries with inadequate leadership in terms of bringing the resources of those countries together as i've done for my period and the world bank. this is something that needs to be worked through, whether or not there is an israel issue. it is a serious issue anyway. and as i said, the split within the arab community, the sunni shia split has within it i think also seen some difficulty. so i hope very much that my success and all the people who are training at brookings will come up with much better idea than my generation had and that this thing can be resolved and that there will be an arab leadership that as far as the antennae can bring about a

greater balance. >> thank you, jim. for about ten minutes or so for a question. if you have a question, please identify yourself and wait for the microphone. >> thank you very much for your remarks, mr. wolfensohn. my name is michael hager, president of the education for employment foundation, which is active in five of the middle eastern countries, including west bank and gaza. i would like to know sir, what is the policy of the quartet with respect to gaza. my understanding has been from the beginning of the quartet hoped to show the citizens of the five that there was a better life in the west bank and that the hamas should be reject it. i remember being in gaza city shortly after the election and been told that if that was the policy that hamas would be the last man standing.

i would like her views on whether that was really the policy and secondly, what do you think the impact is in terms of the use of a large majority of whom have no economic opportunity whatsoever and may have other ways to work out their frustrations? well, i think on the other part of your question is what i was just addressing. there is an acute frustration amongst the youth. if you have 60% plus unemployment, you have, whether it is in gaza, or whether it in any country, you have a hell of a problem in containing the emotions and the frustrations of youth. it's not an arab issue. it's an issue that you can't have that and a peaceful development. and so i would say that that issue is pretty clear.

in the first part of your question related to? the court policy. what george mitchell has been trying to do in the last two and a half years, or actually it's tony blair was trying to do it was to intervene in relation to the question of how these issues can be solved. but as the gentleman behind you know, the quartet -- the quartet envoy has a very limited mandate. in my case, i thought that the mandate was greater. and for a time, people humored me by pretending that i did in fact have a mandate to go beyond economic elements. but if you read carefully the terms of the quartet envoy, it is essentially an economic post.

it is not a political post. and to drive that home, to me i was told by some of my members of the quartet, notably in this country that the furniture was about to remove did we should close the office. and in a short period of time, i had a farewell party to the members of my team, from the quartet. it was a sad but liquid affair that we had in jerusalem. and we parted shortly after that there was the solution to the problem which was an invasion of gaza, which lasted as you all remember maybe 24 hours. and that initiative turned on itself and made the relations even worse. then when there was a resumption

of the idea about the quartet, is a long story, but basically tony blair ticket nine and he has had a limited mandate ever sense. so i would say that the quartet had little or no act diggity other than economic. and that the weight is now clearly as it was with secretary rice and her colleagues very much a u.s. driven activity. because the concession to the quartet was a concession, in my judgment, and was never really real. and if you can wait until june or july when my book comes out, it will give you chapter and verse in relation. i hope you'll all buy a copy because it's such an exciting

story. >> ralph krause, research chemist. while the nigerian who was apprehended in detroit did not come from a deprived background, i wondered still what role are effects that the search and destroy missions and demolition of housing and future of borders has contributed or generated with dive bombers. >> well, there's not been, to the visible suicide bombers, whether they're in the region of palestine, israel, or other places, including our own country. the attacks are more than five years ago. the people that were conducting those attacks are by and large educated, reasonably financially supported. so it was not -- it was not that group of people they can't get

work. and the experience busbar in suicide bombings, other than in the local event, where someone steps dynamite to themselves and up something. but the big ones have been done by a more intellectual group did indeed this gentleman i think the most recent one was a graduate of the school of economics i think. so there's not a necessary connection between inability to get work and with suicides. but one thing i think is very clear at the moment is that the overall economic disadvantage and the actions of the israeli military, while the israelis what i think justify a response to continued pressure.

doesn't really play well with either the general community or with the palestinians because it seems -- it seems that if you have 1500 people killed and 500 injured in the attacks, that is disproportionate to the problem. and i would say that world opinion is probably in support of that view. on the other hand, if you talk to israelis, public opinion they are is that it was responsive to what it's been happening to them. it is a very, very difficult issue. there are some white people, however, that are trying to resolve it and saying that resolving the particular argument is not essential to bringing about a piece.

.. i have been two both the palestinian territories and israel many times in the last two years and i really surprises me and pleases me that underneath the rhetoric which is ever more vigorous and maybe

more justified, there is none the less a group of young palestinians and israelis and older leaders of whom i probably would put at the top to really see through this and see that the goals of an answer has to be peaceful coexistence. >> gary, i'm going to give you the last three questions and we will go to the panel. >> thank-you, gary vigil from the mitchell reports. i'm interested in your perspective on the extent to which the battle of the narrative's has a role in this issue and particularly with respect to youth disillusionment and what i'm referring to is the notion that i think we have a sort of taken the easy path of

saying that osama bin laden and al qaeda don't really offer an alternate vision but for some the notion of a caliphate is an alternate vision and that it's imperative on us writ large to engage in a counter narrative and ivan -- interested in whether you think that's an accurate and whether you think that's something that can have an influence particularly on u.s. >> i obviously have read the and listen to arguments, but i don't think this thing is going to be solved. i think the debate is going to be about what were the conditions that were established probably first by bill clinton which are not going to be modified very much evident in relation to the physical arrangements on the ground,

95 percent or so of the land is clear and 5% will be a land swap. is unlikely that you'll have a return as the palestinians other than a symbolic return that to the rest of the issue will be solved by compensation, that you'll do a deal on jerusalem and the quicker that you can get there in the end of that's going to be the resolution of the problem. and the israelis will insist on having a united jerusalem and will back down from that, they will have to, and what is critical is that in my judgment that the united states at some point did this a priority to insist on a because i don't think there is much time. and i think if it is not resolved, then in the issue will be, far less important, that you

will then have an issue of a single israeli state for years with a large and growing palestinian involvement ultimately possibly a majority with a jewish settler is becoming or the jewish in the israeli inhabitants being more and more influenced by a fast-growing religious group which is destabilizing israeli society. and i think -- i haven't spoken to be be about it, but i think that the leadership in israel must recognize that the next year or two is the time when you have to do a deal. i think it all changes after that. i think at the moment you could get arab support for a deal. who knows what will happen in two years' time? there may be a whole lot of other internal issues that make

it impossible. and so my own belief is that i were israeli or if i were palestinian i would be looking to try and get something done and the fact that 60 to 70 percent of israeli and palestinian population believe that makes me believe that there is a chance. i just felt the leadership will carry it through, but in the next panel you have real experts so you should ask them. instead of listening to a superannuated former civil servant. >> but still olympian sensor. that's a perfect segue obviously, jim, before we give up the podium to the panel going up here now. i want to thank you and hope you'll join me in writing everybody here to, back for a discussion of your book when it comes out. >> thank you very much and will give a discount to anybody. [laughter] [applause]

>> [inaudible conversations]

a look at the palestinian role in middle east peace talks

continues with a panel discussion about people living in the gaza strip and the fact that nearly three-quarters of those living in the palestinian territories are under the age of 29 and. at the brookings institution in washington hosts this hour and 20 minute discussion. >> [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone. the panel is here and in is going to be quite a task to, after james wolfensohn and strobe talbott but we will do our best i am a non resident senior fellow at the wolfensohn center for development and i'm delighted to be moderating this a very, very distinguished panel. we have the pleasure and the honor of being joined by rep.

keith ellison from the fifth congressional district of minnesota and the u.s. house. his philosophy is as he describes as one of generosity and inclusiveness and he has strived to reflect the concerns of his constituency in the work that he is doing in many, many areas including human rights and he will talk to us about some of his experience in visiting gaza. two his right is daniel levy to is the senior fellow and co director of the middle east task force at the new america foundation and he comes to us with a long experience of negotiating peace agreements. in u.s. the senior adviser to

prime minister barack when -- and the minister of justice. he was part of the israeli delegation to the taliban negotiations, some of the results of which mr. wolfensohn just mentioned. it to his right amjad atallah is co-director of the middle east task force and in america foundation and a specialist in negotiations in conflict in post-conflict situations. he has advised the palestinian negotiating team so we have the person who advised the israelis and the person who invests the palestinians and as jim was saying earlier there are talking to each other and their friends so there is a hope. then into my immediate right we have a andrew whitley who is from the united nations relief and works agency.

he has a long history of involvement with the palestine an answer is also in an earlier life as a journalist with financial times and other prestigious newspapers. and he actually wrote 20 years ago in a book about the future of the economic future of palestine. >> and article. >> not a book, an article. you can say a book. and finally we have a edward sayre, assistant professor at the university of southern mississippi and the author of a very interesting piece of this book, generation in waiting, which is the sum of the work to date of the wolfensohn center on the middle east use initiative and and it is a joint publication of the wolfensohn center and the dubai school of government. it edward is also spending a quiet time -- quite a lot of

time at the palestine economic policy research institute so we have a panel of people who know the region and have demonstrated their commitment. but i would like to start with you, congressman keith ellison, and ask what images, what struck you when you visited gaza in february of last year. >> that's a great question but, first of all, let me thank mr. wolfensohn, the brookings institute and an american foundation and all of you. a year after that to the very catastrophic set of events that we know now as operation have led to see everyone in this room with a standing room only demonstrates that the world attention has been taken off this crisis and i think that's a good thing. you know, as i think about what i saw a year ago and hope to see in today's when i go back to gaza, a reporter asked me one

year later what you think has been done? it seems to me speaking from a reporter's perspective that nothing has changed. in my response to the reporter was, we would be fortunate if nothing had changed. it has gone worse. the fact is that since the operation the factories that we toured in which were bombed out, destroying, clearly and not open again, the hundreds of people that were working in any particular biscuit factory are still unemployed. a group of men that i walked up and talk to have a constructive like a little hot from a cinderblock -- i wouldn't be surprised if those same fellows who were about the same as i am, they have kids to think about and wives to care for and families to think about the out -- they're probably still thinking about about this moment.

i went to a grocery store at a camp and was told that there was a shortage of shackles in in the economy, just paper notes, they didn't have enough so i decided that to buy some staff and just give it to somebody. and i did that and bought some candy bars and was told it that they came not to the checkpoints which are still closed, but through it tunnels beneath its which have increased in number. and so when i bought these, i bought these candy bars i could, indeed, all of these so i gave them to the kids outside. then they kept coming up and i was told that these children, their parents can buy these candy bars because the premium that is placed on those items is just too high for the average person to afford. those children who went to the school, maybe they went to the american school in gaza and the school still bombed out and

destroyed. probably before the bombing they could have gone in and rebuild but still no concrete, no class and no items put forward to build the school back up and the people who ran the school who started that school are still jamming into very limited space to educate children. we went to the cost little in the psychosocial roma which had that the most interesting depictions of it busy characters, goofy and all -- but cartoons painted on the wall. one have was disney characters and the other's was charred remains of what used to be a wall. i'm pretty sure that that wall has not been repaired and and at the posttraumatic stress that those children have been suffering from has not been alleviated. i'm also sure that the children in southern israel who we met are still hoping and praying that iraq does not hit their

home. they are still running for bomb shelters and they pray in playgrounds. it's still a very awful condition and that we make a few more points as you asked me what's changed. well, since the operation we all remember -- i don't know netanyahu and the coalition that was swept into office post operation, they certainly are there now. it is clear that israel's diplomatic position has slid backwards. they used to have a working relationship with turkey, that has been damaged. morocco, they've had relationships and has been damaged and i think diplomatically since the goldstone report has been released clearly there has been diplomatic demonstrations -- damage to israel. the practice that i think the

final analysis has been catastrophic for everybody. and so we passed i think -- the credibility of the united states congress has been harmed since the operation. >> sorry to interrupt -- we will come back. >> you put me on a roll. >> it's hard to stop talking especially the numbers are in the quite shocking. just to illustrate -- >> before i go can make a quick announcement? were give me. next week the doctor who lost three of his children and a niece who will be on capitol hill on january 20th, you're all invited, and he is alive in teaching at university of toronto but his children are casualties. we also are preparing a resolution filled with quotes from american public officials on the need to address humanitarian conditions so with that i just -- >> we will come back to you,

this is not your last chance to speak. [applause] i just wanted to illustrate a figure that congressman just talked about, the destruction of the protective capacity. in june 2005 before the withdrawal, there were 3900 and industrial establishments in gaza that occupied and employed 35,000 people. in december of 2008 the 3900 became a 200, and after the operation and had become a 70. and the 35,000 people are unemployed -- employed have come down 21900 so those are numbers and that we all should ponder when congressman said the situation is not the same, it's gone worse, and we are lucky that andrew here has a view lager for you of what has been happening in the occupied

palestinian territories and maybe you want to share with us what you see today and where we come from suv i thank you very much, and. ladies and gentlemen. in september last september the general assembly of the u.n. held a solemn commemorative event marking the 60th anniversary, it was not a cause for celebration a, a moment to pause and reflect on that fact that the refugee question still persisted 60 years bonnet. the speech is really didn't matter and i did it lasted all but what made an impact on almost everyone who sought was a huge poster had the trip to the entire general assembly building. it was dramatic and was a montage of pictures of young happy smiling boys and girls holding up the little items with a camera and the slogan underneath -- p starts here. that is our goal that we believe that it is the young people many of whom are refugees in gaza, 70 percent of the population are

refugees, 1.1 million registered after 1.5 million estimated the total population. and these people clearly are so you're earning in desperate for someone to give them something tangible to hang onto as a means of hope for the future and, indeed, as you heard from other speakers the prospects are pretty bleak, indeed,. he has been referring to the employ of the statistics from local manufacturing. in virtually all other alternatives for sources of employment have also been progressively eliminated. as jim knows well the previous main source of employment used to be a day laborer in israel, that's closed and gone. there used to be a very extensive agriculture in gaza, almost completely destroyed, almost completely gone with virtually no source of self-reliance there. the fishing industry almost completely decimated. the local manufacturing as subcontractors for israeli companies, very profitable

business lines, mr. wolfensohn referred to the business contacts between the west bank businessmen and the israeli company is, sadly this is not happening where the highly entrepreneurial gaza business elite and as tragic because these are the people who can provide local employment there. so what are the alternatives for young people? today to work for the hamas security forces, you can be on a payroll and be a doctor or a nurse or engineer, but there's a limit to our ability to support people and it's not our job ultimately to replace the private sector. in or else you can work in the economy which is then a thriving business for the last year. and that unfortunately -- fortunately from the point of cutting down on the arms smuggling but unfortunately from humanitarian perspective because most of the goods coming in have been essentials of daily life to support people and it looks as this that will be cut off. once again, and another door

will compete closed. i would very much hope that the counter to that would be the would-be relaxations of the israel crossings. i'm not sure it will happen but we must continue to argue and advocated that should be. because clearly the alternative is going to be continuing deepening sense of isolation and frustration and radicalization and what has changed in the past year is virtually nothing in terms of condition on the ground except that hamas is stronger than before. hamas is more entrenched in power, the population is more radicalized that it was, and not saying hamas is more popular but is more powerful and more determined to exert his own authority over all aspects of life. >> well, this is again a very very sobering picture, but there is a need to think a bit more specifically aimed about overall picture. what is the potential for youth

to find a way towards employment and i think, edward, i would like to ask you to tell us what your research has been in showing on these issues? >> i'll just set the stage to think about coming back to some things representative keith ellison said as well as mr. whitney said. the situation even before the gaza war was in the acosta strip especially for the youth. if you look back at what had happened the previous 10 years there is an average having of the income from 2000 to 2008 already in this is largely due to the blockade been in place for several years, but in addition to that the dire situation and where the use of gaza is much more severe than was going on in the overall economy. some basic statistics about this include the fact that over 74% of the population of gaza is an

of the age of 30, approximately 30 -- 232% between 15 and 29 and the rest is at the age of 15. in every poll words, every new group of students that enters the school systems in gaza the largest on record. on the other end of the educational system the students are now going on to the labor force and they're going to try to get jobs and again every year is a record number of job-seekers. on average in the gaza strip in 200,820,000 new job seekers into the labor force. and this is in a situation where previously there were some release the house for these new workers. but they go to bed israel to get jobs or there was a possibility for more opportunity in the west bank and there might of been in the gaza strip and all these have now been shut off. and because of that it is the lack of the ability to reach

markets by producers, the ability to get raw materials by producers, and the ability to access your consumers as well for these manufacturers that really hold and some potential for hope of creating a dynamic gaza economy that has been completely shut off. even before the war last year, the cost of some of the mobility restrictions even when the borders are open were putting a surcharge of roughly 50 to 60 percent on every good that was produced in gaza, they would have to go through the security measures that would involve back-to-back tracking measures with a would have to be unloaded from palestinian truck to then loaded on israeli truck and hand checked. everything that pass through israel. these restrictions can then the ability of manufacturers in gaza to do and even before the war and now after roughly $2 billion of damage to the gaza economy that had been rebuilt the

situation is much more dire than it was even then. >> amjad atallah, would you like to build on this picture? i like to start talking a little bit about what to think might need to happen, what are some of the possibility is to begin to think more positively about getting us out of the very. their situation? >> i think we have had a very dismal picture presented of the situation on the ground. how to make that worse? well, leave the united states directly to it and the consequences of what's happening in gaza specifically to american national interest and then it becomes not simply a theoretical problem about what the israelis and palestinians have to deal with, but becomes a problem of what we have to deal with. the president did a remarkable job in his cairo speech a year ago in presenting a new

narrative to the muslim world of the united states as a partner in the u.s. with a restart, in the beginning with the muslim world. based on mr. respect and reciprocity. he did something no previous president as far as i can tell has done in which he actually equated the jewish right to self-determination with the palestinian right to self-determination and said that these are both equally necessary and equally american national interest which was pronounced a meant that a lot of muslims all across the world grab onto. and one thing he did was he specifically stated that the lifting of the siege on gaza and in subsequent statements and before the cairo speech was the lifting of the siege on gaza was something that the united states was demanding and needed to be done. so now it's a year later. and i was in gaza with congressional delegation last summer and one thing that was remarkable was that every gaza that wimax, every that wimax

asked when it is the united states going to free palestine when ana this is going to free gaza. they didn't ask when hamas was quick to do it, as a matter of fact, no palestinian that we spoke with spoke about them? the spoke about the united states and asked the congressman when are you going to free gaza? the idea that the united states is in the tenth or completely unable to exercise influence over israel or egypt and the united states cannot open the borders at all from either the egyptian side or, the sea or from the israeli side is something that no palestinian in gaza that we meant believed. ..

who he named obama were. if you want to palestinian homes the past you would see pictures of kennedy. people would have carpets up on the wall with pictures of

kennedy who get kind of a and iconic figure and assumed the same thing was happening with obama at the same time, we met a woman standing in front of her home which had been bombed out during the war and she kept asking the congressmen and congresswomen when are you going to rebuild my house? when are you going to rebuild my house? when are you going to rebuild my house? and nobody of course had an answer to that. the only concrete that's being shipped into the gaza strip is coming through the tunnels and speed can't afford that. the only class is coming from egypt in the tunnels. it's not coming from the border. so, i think the united states on one hand the good news is if the united states had the political will to make statement on was gaza i could. the bad news is for a year we haven't and it's hard to see how there is going to be a positive

constructive peace process moving forward if gaza is not part and parcel of that. >> what is the new view from israel? >> i think the dominant narrative in israel remains one of as jim wolfensohn discussed earlier israel left in 2005 there was the continuation of rocket attacks. where is the love? where is the great lesson for the withdrawal? the fact that most of the international community is not recognized in the end of occupation because israel continues to control the sea, the air, the border exit's and of course the e egyptian one. the conditions of that withdrawal is unilateralism being nothing but entrenchment in parallel on the west bank the immediate possession of a blockade to donner implementation of access in the movement agreement doesn't

really factor into the equation. what i would argue in terms of how this affects israel is if you take everything we just heard and then reflect back on what jim wolfensohn share earlier of this award of 15 to 25-year-olds, under 15-year-olds which applies even more so in gaza with the interest of the region went. when you think about this act of the d industrialization that is taking place it's not been about how we create more jobs but job creation has been discouraged and literally driven on the ground with the economy. how on earth can that serve the security of israel within the next door. how can a population seething with angry young people being in israel's security interests and i think israel is building a security nightmare a future

security nightmare for itself and with the conditions that have been created in gaza. now unfortunately the combination of snow is really being allowed into gaza, myself and amjad together were holding a congressional delegation i am an industrial citizen, i can't be part of that visit to gossip. no israeli even journalist has been allowed into gaza in the last three years. there have been some very courageous and brave attempts by some of the human rights communities for instance we have their representative an israeli human rights group with us the of distributed video cameras to the gazans to record stories in "the new york times" that an appearance of the most popular is really a news websites to give is release some sense of the reality inside gossip but i think what you've seen as has been discussed if anything is a

radicalization and today one sees hamas as the bulwark against if, non-of al qaeda wannabes and copycats emerging in him gossip. the blockade is underlining rather than contributing to to is really security and of course security has to be considered more broadly and in that respect international legitimacy is a component of israel national security and i would argue nothing is done no more to date and undermine and eroded that for israel than the actions that took place during operation and then the ongoing in position of the closure on the gaza. if i put it in the context where we are today this attempt to

launch a peace process in the absence of addressing what is going on in gaza you are basically playing russian roulette with any peace process you attempt to launch pad it's such a potentially destabilizing factor has happened last year. turkey was involved in is really syrian mediation effort that ended and soon as the cast's began sorting the attempt to launch a peace process and i kind of hope that no one will notice that gaza is still there is not a smart way to go especially, and i would like to add one more point which is what i am really focused on which is if the humanitarian angle isn't good enough for you and the israeli security in goal isn't compelling enough then there is some american i would argue national security interest here. when the secretary clinton goes to a conference that took place last march, commits money to

gaza that can't be disbursed because you can't get stuff in, when there is a new american peace envoy who has yet to set foot and gaza a year into office that doesn't do any good. by the way when someone like keith ellison visits gaza i would say that does more for american security in the middle east and public diplomacy than virtually anything else we have seen. i'm sorry to embarrass you if i have, than almost anything we've seen this year when egypt is building a barrier on its side of the border which may strangle the economy. there are american engineers involved. america is getting blamed for this. america is getting blamed for the israeli actions in the arab world so if it's not high enough on the american agenda and an on foley hasn't been there yet and their states' department rules legacy on plan would be in the position to at least question whether he can circumvent those rules. i think this is troubling for

the u.s.. >> i think what you say then used to me and there is a deficit of knowing what the situation is and i would like to ask you, andrew, what do you think should be done or can be done to change the image of gaza as a place that is full of hamas terrorists to emphasize the humanitarian and total lack of hope that exists. what can we do so that people get a sense of the situation. >> places of ordinary people is important indeed and i am delighted representative allyson is going to have this doctor come and speak. we have got a group of young children, ninth graders coming to the united states, supported by the u.s. government. these are human rights students

who've exiled in our program of human-rights peaceful conflict resolution and tolerance and there is a report they are going to be about to go to atlantic to the carter center, come to washington, meet the people in government and then come to new york to the united nations. this is a group of girls, 14, 15-year-olds as well as boys who will come later. people will be able to hear the voice of young people what they see as their future and i find it remarkable despite everything gazans have gone through in the past years young people are still committed to the idealism of human-rights and they still can feel that there is something important and relevant to their lives rather than giving in the other direction and becoming potential suicide bombers were militants in some group or other. in addition to that naturally i would like to encourage more people to people to get into gaza whenever they can to see for themselves. i hope more congressional delegations will be able to build back there and i would like to be able to see more of

the business elite who we hardly hear anything about. people who have a strong desire to reestablish ties with their israeli counterparts because that was good business for them and it was something that they had known they can do to be built to promote local employment in the area. let's stop talking about companies that can help people to reestablish those links to the steel manufacturers who can do such a good job and start to give meaningful sources of employment. >> let's assume again that the blockade is lifted. >> that is the precondition for everything. >> another number. the palestinian trail of the authority estimates that in order for the economy to work the need about 850 truckloads of day. at best there have been 127 at the very best. and sometimes none at all. >> probably 20% and most of the range of goods is limited.

israel deliberately chose an arbitrary sometimes cruel fashion of things that can come in and cannot come in. we had long periods where there could be no light bulbs and tree and to gossip, no batteries for hearing aids for young children. this is cruel and perverse. >> con kriseman allyson. >> i just want to get that after we left gaza, we met with a member of u.s. aid, committed servant and committed public servant and he asked as a question that actually startled me. he said what did you see there? what is coming on? i said don't you know? you must be here every day. he said no, we haven't been there since 2003. there was a convoy attacked and instead of taking a tactical step to figure out how we can go in there, we simply don't go in there and we work through other agencies. so one thing we can do today now, don't even need a piece of

legislation is have usaid personnel re-enter gaza. that is something we can do now. you can write a letter and ask the secretary to do it and i think it is something that -- i've written a letter and asked the secretary about this in a congressional hearing, and i hope that you'll will join me in asking that happens. somebody's clapping. [laughter] after we left that meeting we met with an israeli military official who referred to hamas as hamastan. we can't do anything for hamastan. it's hamastan. and my friend, 75% of the people there are under 30 and another 60%, 58% are under 15 said they did not vote for hamas. the majority didn't come the residents didn't we have to help counteract this idea that

anything goes because it is hamastan and i think that idea is operating at the whether or not the israelis are deliberate the could deliberately doing this or not. i think the policy, the the fact the policy is a policy of provocation. and i know that -- i think we have -- we need to help our friends reflect on, you know, what they are doing. i don't think there is a real thoughtful idea about the overall impact of what the policy is. and finally, we have to argue can they have macaroni and gaza? he said i think they already have it. no, they said they don't have macaroni and they don't have lintels and much of anything else. he said i will check on the macaroni. and then a few days later i heard there was a little macaroni but i don't know if there is still macaroni or not so we are debating macaroni and i think we need to reflect on that, too. >> before i give the floor back

to daniel i would like to ask how much knowledge is there among your colleagues in congress? i don't mean to put you on the spot about what the situation is to begin >> if you want to know how much knowledge there is about my colleagues in congress all you need to do is look at the vote on the ecclestone report whereas in the united states congress voted to but is the language, not in any way except in the of the findings of the ecclestone report, and the vote was something like about 58 people voted either present or know and everybody else voted for it. and one of our big objections to passing this resolution is that other than brian baird and i bet nobody read the report or even the executive summary to get so we are ready to condemn a report which we have not read at all that is how much we know about it. >> thank you. >> does that give a good

indication about how much we know? >> daniel, you wanted -- >> this reminds me of a conversation perhaps close to an argument that i often find myself with my is really france, and the line would be why is this different to what america is doing in afghanistan, and iraq? there is a civilian price and civilian casualties. it's horrible in any circumstance. now, i am not a huge fan of the application of counterinsurgency everywhere but the core of that is the idea of a conflict situation if you don't like a group of people in control of a particular area or regime you are trying to win over the civilian population. and i think where israel has got so horribly wrong in gaza is is punishing the entire civilian population. there is no distinction will

draw on. in fact if you open the border crossings and would be allowing the aid and assistance organizations committed to resistance not going to governmental purposes in gaza. he would be allowing them to -- you'd be allowed in the private sector to rebuild and allow them to rebuild the kind of institutions of civil society. i'm not saying the regime approach is a good idea but there is an israeli policy which is essentially and this is what the goldstone report found that was problematic beyond the individual. it is essentially collective punishment, and not only is that in contravention of international humanitarian law, there is a reason you ain't doing that in top parts of the world that you are involved in. and i think that's the conversation that i'm having with fellow is really is the friends of israel need to be

heading in a much more forward leaning away with israeli counterparts. >> in the panel earlier jim wolfensohn was talking about the fact that there's an increasingly vocal and extremist religious growing force of israel. those arguments you just made, but i go to the have and israel? >> for the vast majority of the population received no palestinian come here and a palestinian, think the palestinian is the best way to go about daily life. by the bay there is a human understandable element to that. it's not the information is not accessible is people would rather not access it in governmental circles. i think one can have a sensible conversation with the current israeli leadership. i think it's partly the mistake

of the u.s., the international community to have gone a long way what is known as the west bank first policy which is make conditions, show the palestinians if you live under a moderate p.a. regime it's good, and the camaraderie to that is if you live under hamas it's bad, which means you're actually encouraging this policy so if your narrative is to encourage the polis, then you are at a week place when you are trying to tell, michael with israel sitting know, with the macaroni in the custom a tough policy is problematic that there is a very important report released by the various international aid assistance called feeling which is worth looking up and others and it goes into this and with the international community failed to do obviously there is the terri hail as well. so i think you could kickstart a conversation. i think there is a potential

receptivity in israeli official circles but i think it's being challenged enough. >> if i were to ask each one a few when you think needs to be done right now to get the situation frozen both in terms of getting information out, and may be finding points to restart the dialogue, after all there is the need or willingness on the part of the u.s. government which came in very big in some of the interventions to do something so where do we start? i start with you and that will go across the panel. >> i think simply the united states has to stop trying to identify what we want the israelis to do and what we want the palestinians to do and identify what we need to do. and there are things of course we ask the israelis to do and palestinians to do but there are things we can do and those are the things we should identify

and start doing right away. the other is we can't help egypt build an iron will to break off the tunnels until we've actually opened up the borders to humanitarian and reconstruction goods so we can open up the border to humanitarian and reconstruction goods to read the mechanisms to make sure hamas is not the distributor and a recipient of those goods has already been worked out an drew can go into the detail but it's already on paper. the details of how to do with our already there and hamas will not be in the position of saying no, don't open the borders because we are not going to be allowed to be driving the trucks to distribute the goods. that is an unattainable position for them to be in so they cannot say no. as the united states can begin opening up the borders even from egypt if we can't do it from the israeli side. and began to be seen. imagine the visual impact throughout the world of the united states being the the liberator and the one distributing aid and freeing the

children of gaza. imagine that as opposed to u.s. army corps of engineer building it john and steel wall with egypt to ploch of the last remaining candy bars coming into gaza. those are the two narratives' right now. and i just don't see the benefits to the united states being involved with the negative one. >> daniel? >> i would say three things. so first of all of your policy to the position you can be raising this issue in terms of the strategic long-term interests, the stuff in your chapter and that jim wolfensohn talked about and that andrew has talked about. america has a strategic dialogue. there is an incredible density of relationship with israel. so be moving in that conversation. the second thing i would say is in terms of dealing with the practical problem, remove the

pretext. if part of israel's predisposition is related to the situation to getting the freedom of the israeli, and i hope he's freed, be encouraging the deal. america doesn't have a key role to play but it's certainly be encouraging that he negative one of the pretexts is who can we deal with in gaza, then i would say be encouraging palestinian reconciliation for many reasons but this could perhaps be one of them. so remove the immediate reasons for not doing that and people demonstrating that you care. gaza has to be up there in the talking points. there was a very significant european foreign master statement in december. read the clause on gaza investment. if american leaders every time they spoke about the middle east

are beginning to use that kind of language i think it would be important to read it to be translated into practice. have you miss the ied folks in their new -- have usaid folks in there. >> more than anyone else on this panel, andrew is next. >> the previous speakers addressed the main issues. i think don't take them in isolation. these issues can be taken one by one. yes, the prisoner exchange has to happen and we sincerely hope it will happen soon. but the price of that is not simply to be able to transfer a number of prisoners over and say that is the end of the story. the population of gaza needs release. but if we are going to think a little bit longer term we have to think about a way to be able to give young people some tangible sense of a better future. how were they going to have that? where are they going to get

education from? which education institutions are they going to? how will their teachers people to come in and out? you can't keep 1.5 million people bottled up in a ball the last three years and lock and throw away the key to read the political message sent by egypt is putting on this massive steel wall along the the wall is as much a message to israel saying we are not going to have the problem pushed off on to us. don't think that we should look it away and let us deal with the problems there because remember that gaza for many decades before hand 90 prisoner of its imports and exports depend on israel of its future is there and you can't imagine it is going to disappear so there has to be a discussion between the u.s. government and the others with the israeli government to simply say you can't wished gaza away. >> i would like to bring the focus back to the mobility issue we've been discussing at some level and i think there are two

specific things if i had a wish list i would ask to be put at the top of the agenda. the first one has to do with broadening the focus a little bit and also we have mostly been talking about gaza and as jim wolfensohn mentioned earlier that the situation in the west bank has improved it the beginning of 2008 there were 600 or more roadblocks and blockades preventing movement within cutbank and that is removed tremendously. however the reduction is still largely superficial. there's a main artery that is still cut off between from a ramallah. they are generally only temporarily removed and it comes and goes like the wind and no one knows why it is going to happen. this is still having a horrible dtv reading affect on the west bank economy even though it is shining in comparison to what is going on in gaza. and then connected to that in addition to not taking our law

of the ball with what is going on on the west bank and the mobility restrictions i think the attention the ocean again be paid to an idea that's been around for awhile but has been now dropped which is this west bank gaza corridor and the time 1996 when i was working with the think tank and ramallah the discussion is how expensive a would be to secure properly, about how the construction costs and such. since that time we have now had the security and since that time we see plans to build more walls along israel's's border along with gaza, the southern wall and from the u.s. perspective there are resources we can put into words assuring some access. we can't guarantee the future flexible if a gaza port would be built it wouldn't be shut down like a was bombed and such but

with real resources we can show earnestness about opening up the gaza strip to the brethren in the west bank. >> a brief word if i could because it's something we haven't mentioned so far today. to her credit and of the great achievements of condoleezza rice was 2005 access agreement, the last agreement which israel, the palestinian authority in the u.s. signed off on. that is the reference point and we should go back to that and say you signed on to this and it sets out in the timetable the steps that the to be taken to restore the links between gaza and the west bank and restore normal movement in gradual stages. and that is what clearly is needed because otherwise we are moving toward a three stage solution. >> thank you. again this is but a final conversation. i'm very excited about the energy in the room. i hope we all can stay focused. i would say that in terms of specific action items, we need to get usaid personnel in gaza.

we can do it. need -- thethat hard. congress needs to commit to unrwa. unrwa has been harshly criticized by certain elements in our work on chris based on faulty information. but i will tell you that the chairwoman nita lowey and berman have made positive statements about unrwa, but as a whole there is always this low, where we have to defend unrwa, and i think that is a shame. we have to encourage israel to deal forthrightly with the recommendation in the old stone reports that they engage in their old process so that we can stop any further diplomatic isolation and help them sort of restore some credibility internationally. i think that is very important the goldsborough report isn't asking for a lot it's just dustin for israel to of its own credible process. i done think it is too much to ask. but we also say we have to stop

this thing -- there were a bunch of students from gaza held up for their fulbright scholarships. this is insane. we can't have these kind of things and we have to be much more robust and diplomatic dynamically. i also think and this would be a political risk for the president but i think he should go and make a big speech in tel aviv for jerusalem which can help the israeli population understand that look, this is not to harm you. the relations are to help you. we want to improve relationships and your security is built upon palestinian flag of the, statehood and security and i think that that's something i would hope what happened for a while i know his approval ratings were down in the single digits, but i think in order to loosen the grip a little bit and get a body in from this population it's a least something to seriously consider. and then when the call for palestinian statehood is made i

hope americans support it. i don't think it will hurt our ally, israel. all the way think there will be resistance, but i think that it's something that ultimately is going to happen and i feel that we should be ready for it. when it does and we should be supportive of that effort. >> thank you. let me just say what for me -- i'm going to open up in a minute. i know there are people anxious -- there are two things i'm taking away from this conversation. the first one is the need for information that i think the way in which daniel put it about the israelis is also true here. the only thing you want to hear about gaza is what comforts you in a particular view of this ration so some situation needs to happen and i hope that some of the people in the press here we are very happy to provide you

with all the information that is needed because and this is the second point i'm just taking away is what his feelings about the fact that it is not about what the israelis ought to do it with the palestinians ought to do but what is that ignited states needs to do and i think he made a strong case for the link between the two rereading situation in gaza and the security of the united states. let me open up and i would like to -- i know this is a subject which people love to make speeches. and i1 you to refrain as much as you want. as much as you can and asked questions because that is why we have people who've been very provocative so i would start back there the gentleman with a mustache and please introduce yourselves.

if you of our speakers mentioned about the egyptian wall about the role of u.s. support one particular he mentioned the army corps of engineers i haven't seen any of that in the press or other sources and i would like to ask you if that is based on specific information or as a representative from the state of minnesota if you are aware from government sources perhaps increase if in fact there has been such support as that. >> actually i've only heard this and arab press sources so i don't know if it is true but it is being reported an air of press sources that the united states is involved or the u.s. army corps of engineers. the perception is as bad as the reality. if it's not true we should correct right away. if the united states isn't involved in and do the cofids u.s. government should make a point of specifying that.

>> shibley answer or wait? >> is please. >> i was going to ask the staffer if he knew the answer to your question today i can tell you this i have heard no objection from u.s. state to permit or congress about the egyptian project. but i cannot confirm or deny that the u.s. army corps of engineers is involved. but we will look it up and get back to you if you give us a card. >> michael lane, rethink the middle east to be the this is an incredibly knowledgeable panel, however, there is one shortcoming in that there is no one on the panel even remotely supportive of the israeli position, and the one is really is legitimately and honestly critical of the israeli government position. so it makes it sound as if it is simply irrational or counterproductive everything that the israelis are doing and i would imagine that there is an

argument on the other side. unfortunately every humanitarian initiative has a political dimension. so i would like the panel to address the politics of if the siege were lifted and of the prisoner exchange occurred what impact that would have on hamas and its popular adamle in gaza but in the west bank, and i think this is a concern of the israelis who if they do want to make a deal for palestinian state with fatah find it much more problematic to consider doing a deal with hamas. >> who would like to take this question? >> let me try and rather than try to channel the israeli argument i can tell you what they've told us because we met with the israeli army and idf and israeli politicians and officials to ask them what benefit are you getting from this and why is this in your interest and i think daniel said

it right and you either did to it which is the pressure on the civilian population will affect political change or will occur political benefits to the state of israel. now, we heard a counter argument specifically for the sample from the palestinian minister of economy and trade at the time who said that hamas is bringing over a billion dollars worth of goods from egypt, civilian, not counting whatever pieces for iraq or anything else. civilian goods coming in from egypt. they collected that and they collected tax on that instead of the palestinian authority in the west bank. and the families and the business is running the different tunnell enterprises are making money off of it and the goods are being brought in to complement the goods unrwa was able to. but in that scenario the minister of economy and trade felt this does nothing to help moderate or -- it only

strengthens as m. drew said makes it more powerful. it doesn't achieve even the remotest and groups of replacing hamas. it doesn't even achieve those. so it came back down to if he kept pushing and asking -- you know, why not macaroni? why is hamas a problem? why is hamas not allowed in its tracks and almost came back to a meeting pressure on the civilian population either for punitive purposes, and this isn't unique. the israelis have done this in the past for the west bank as well. if you are asking why we haven't heard that perspective i would simply say that in fact for the last year accepted the notable exception of a handful of very brief congressmen and congresswomen that in fact perspective you have heard every single day of the year which is the perspective why we need to continue publishing the civilian

population. i even heard of american officials in the last administration they were trying to follow the kind of nicaragua policy. from the 1980's if you recall the policy. and so, it sounds harsh, i think it is hard to justify the israeli ambassador to the united states might be about to put a my source been than i can, but i think that if anybody has a more -- >> i.t. door observation seriously. it might be a good way to pursue another form and a dialogue on this topic i think that ambassador orman is extremely articulate and will probably be glad to come in and offer the israeli position, and i would be here if i can work with my schedule i will make sure that it does but i can tell you i talked to the prime minister,

the new one. i talked with the foreign minister, the opposition leader, defense minister, and many others as well and their answer is winning neutral down and start making the critiques and what doesn't help israeli security they will after a little bit of dialogue say it's not really get a security. they will say it is a west bank first policy to create political pressure to either form of an uprising among the population in gaza or perhaps if there is an election have the people ought to let another, have a different outcome in the election so i thank you for your question and i think it is a fair one that is what we have received. >> there is a deterrent restoration of israel's the

current capacity component. but that is more to the responses to the rocket fire. that has less to do with the closure policy. there is a dual use issue in terms of allowing material into gaza. i'm not sure what second use maccaroni could be put to. but in terms of reconstruction materials that argument is used the community have tried and i think a neutral observer would say effectively addressed that dual use where will the materials go. in effect when there are a couple of incidents of material being taken from the u.n., the u.n. a fine white had to suspend -- if it couldn't guarantee what was happening to its own material. there is the regime change component of the no one believes

in it and you saw that during operation. there was of the appetite to push on and actually physically remove the regime. my own conclusion is there is not a great deal of deep strategic thinking. i don't want to go through it, it is well documented that israel is not in place today where it does long-term strategic thinking but there are political pressures. certainly if it were to be opened up you would have members of this coalition who would say why when he is being held there should we not be allowed materials and in other words under pressure there's also a resort to the collective to say collective punishment and israeli officials have been caught out publicly making that argument.

but >> i would like to to return all of you -- beyond discussion political struggle 60 years history hollen development [inaudible] so palestinian lost three regeneration for productive and health of like is a threat for 60 years. we don't need to use the net generation is education will come international communities can and must support financially educated palestinians

[inaudible] able to become educated. all material supplied to this education. but only for productive professionals eckert cultural and medicine, that's it. no political science, no social science. >> no economics. >> we need to be realistic not empty dreamers. it would be a shame if they lost another generation. my question, do we support this idea? [laughter] >> excellent question. one of the things unique about this such rich and partly because of this 60 plus years of history, is the very rapidly became the most educated of all

of the arab countries. and this is partially due to feed unrwa schools very rapidly expanding secondary education in the area and then following with that education expanded. i think the greater problem now though actually is what happens afterwards. in just less than ten years the number of university students tripled from approximately 40 or 50,000 to over 150,000, and that was all in a very short period of time about seven or eight years. the problem that we are now seeing actually is that what is happening on the other end, and the average wait time before man once they graduate from university until they get their first job is almost two years. for women it is even longer and so although there is more that can be done with education i think the more pressing concern is the employment picture once they finish their schooling.

>> let me pick up on where we just left off. unrwa has five vocational training centers, three in the west bank and two in gaza. the second one in gaza we started when gaza disengagement took place in august, 2005. we have ten times as many demand for places in schools, and our occasional schools as we can offer in places for them. the demand is so great to be able to have a good skilled that is marketable and that can then lead onto a good job. that vocational training center in the center of the gaza strip that we started with to do and to those of five was called up for more than three years because of the blockade and subsequent politics and attempt to try to stifle the gaza. i personally raise the money for that to be able to do it and was something we really wanted to do is to show gaza disengagement would lead to something productive. unrwa educates 200,000 children

in gaza. we have a summer school program of a quarter of a million children which acts as an alternative to create an alternative space for people to realize that there is not a single orthodoxy which is coming to rule their and we are grateful the u.s. government is our largest single supporter but i completely agree education must lead on to jobs and clearly we have to find ways of being able to ensure a link to the job market continues. the future of many of these young people depends on their being able to find a way into the job market if not in their own. then perhaps to be able to travel to the gulf were there will be able to get jobs. >> i think that as by year as it is the situation of young people educated young people unable to find jobs is not limited to gaza. it is a phenomenon this troop throughout the region and has a lot to do with what ander just said the link between education

and the job market. but also the nature of education. the very skills that are needed today so that there may be a tremendous increase in enrolment ratios with the quality of what happens in the classroom, the quality of the teaching, the development of the skills needed for the 21st century that is what needs to change and it's not simply true in gaza. it's true throughout the region. sir. >> hi, my name is zach, the new director here in d.c., and as daniel mentioned, we are now engaged in a project of distributing video cameras often to west bank and gaza. this is probably the only way is released these days are seeing what is going on there. my question is to mr. whitley.

as an israeli that just moved here of course i truly am worried about israeli security. i believe that the seed as was said here on the stage is not helping israel security. but i would like a few may elaborate a bit about the alternative of how material monitoring control regime would be from gaza to israel look-alike. >> thank you. this is a dirty practical question. the mechanisms by which there can be control of the crossing points through international waters and european union has offered to be about the debate to extend the border monitoring regime the already established to the other crossing points into israel in principle it has already been agreed. provided one can guarantee to both sides, the israeli side the

security interests will be taken care of and the pub steny inside that there will be predictability, that it won't be arbitrary, wendi closed and won the open, businesses need predictability. the need to have somewhere to turn off prospective where they are going to go. what kind of goods can come and so they can plan for their own future. that is very important indeed. as a confidence-building measure for both sides and i think that is practical and doable in a very short period of time and i know that the united nations would be happy to support that. so that's very important and i see it being able to get a sense of reassurance to the population that the cancer to plan ahead for the future that they can have something to be a to look forward to. that the kids whose educations have been interrupted can complete their education who have lost their opportunities to go abroad. this is important. so perhaps not everything is going to happen overnight we we know it is unrealistic but in a staged approach there must be a relatively short time frame because as jim wolfensohn said earlier, we may lose this opportunity and the divisions

are deepening between gaza and the west bank and have been for some years and we need now to be about to start to knit them back together again otherwise i'm afraid we are moving toward a three state solution, not to stage. >> i fink to more questions. the leedy will -- the lady here. >> i'm of those political scientists. [laughter] i am dying and out of american university, and i've also been part of the youth initiative and i've published a working paper. and a comment and question. i am a little concerned -- >> brief comment. >> small comment. i little concerned the way people are framing things has to do with the middle east does a bomb and young people as a bomb, and i think it's important the work of the initiative, high unemployment, high youth unemployment and places there are not war in the middle east, larocco, jordan, egypt,

incredibly high female unemployment. the growth of the informal sector and what's been happening. this is the horrific scenario in gaza is important but all of these trends are not limited to gaza, and as americans, as people sort of organizing foreign policy and also international economic institutions and some sense the united states has been pushing neoliberalism, privatization, structural adjustment without so we have had a free market without freedom and this brings me to the point mr. wolfensohn brought up. there is a one or two years in every way terms of leadership changes. what can the united states to? we of a democratic president, lots of people are incredibly excited about him. his least policies look very familiar to the last regime.

so is the united states -- what can the united states do about questions of governance in the least because there's a tremendous amount of wealth in the middle east. there's a tremendous amount of private capital in the middle east. what can we do so that our president takes a lead not only fees of the israel and egypt but also some of the large economic paradigms' that are not working so well here recently, and we have a situation in the middle east where young people are not a bomb, young people or not this is unlikely to become extremists, our concern about this is not just about young people becoming terrorists and i think it's important there are fundamental issues we have to talk about and not talk about our interest in that question just because this notion of suicide bombers.

>> can i make a comment? this generation and waiting i read a chapter that has actually a fantastic and far more in depth response to an assortment several countries across the middle east. many of whom have had problems made worse by the war and whether the war one or another and some who have not. but we all have the same underlying demographic issues and the treat the demographics of its exactly as you say not as a response simply too, you know, war got her but to treat it from the perspective of the development and come up with some conclusions and the last chapter on what can be done so i urge everybody -- actually i think they sell the book right of sight so i urge everybody to have a look at that. >> a quick comment, please. what me tell you this i think you're absolutely right and i couldn't agree with you more. we've got to stop looking at the

middle east, africa, asia, the rest of the world through the lens of counterterrorism. we have to broaden our understanding of the rest of the world and if obama is representing anything it is the idea that there is more to life than just worrying about your own security during narrowly defined. we have to broaden it to the net i think in congress right now we have a whole discussion and the discussion that has been brewing for quite a long time is one in which we are to going to say we've got to have human rights, environmental and labor standards and we've also got to if globalization is the reality than the reality goes hand in hand with labor and environmental the human-rights standards so it's kind of the movement but this disjointed and sporadic. let's work together on it. >> i think that what donner and set about the importance of governance is absolutely fundamentalist as somebody that has worked on the middle east for a good many years.

i can say that in fact quite of the problem with hamas and fatah has a lot to do with governments. so i think that this issue is absolutely essential. you wanted to see something? >> i wanted to say very briefly one of the ways to think about the demographic challenge of the middle east is instead of being a threat is being an opportunity and that is an important way to think about it. as population -- as fertility rates are declining very rapidly we are going to have a very large population of working age adults that can benefit the rest of humanity by being engaged in the expanding economies of the battle least if the right policies are in place and it is a critical time. >> i would just say there is also at least a case to be made for a more limited american role. don't prop up these regimes. you don't have to change them but you don't have to prop them

up. >> the last question. >> thank you. director of making sense international. i'm back from the west bank where i was working closely with two of the leading micra finance institutions, and in she was working with you to develop financial products specifically for young people as well as the accompanying training so that young people can effectively access and manage savings products like a credits and savings. and i know of our colleagues are working with trading vocational institutions to make the curriculum more relevant and prepare them to become the kind of employees that micro-- small and medium-size businesses want to hire as well as preparing the with the entrepreneur should skills inclined toward self employment. what is the advice that you have -- what policies or activities do you know about that are coming down the pike that would

be useful for these teachers and youth themselves working so hard to acquire these skills and necessary services to make themselves employable what advice you have you can share with them and for international development practitioners like myself that are working to default access to these kind of services. >> i will start with this. another branch of what the middle east to the initiative is doing is focusing on japan to worship -- and entrepreneurship. there's quite another round table that is going to discuss tapping into the social entrepreneurs that exist in the middle east. currently there are especially in the west bank they have the tradition of restrictions on the banking sector that come from the occupation such that there's a lot of -- there's a lot of improved in maneuver

essentially. and as a general counsel, as a general advice, you know, the idea of the are doing it on their own and not looking toward the p.a. or any other outside authority is the way they are going to move forward with this because of all -- of all the things that have saddened me over the past 15 years thinking about the palestinian economy especially in the west bank is there has been more and more of a shift on looking toward the government to solve all of the economic problems for them. and this sort of effort you're describing is something that i think can if it is about to grow and brief it can make a difference. >> i think we are going to stop here. i would like to ask you to join me in thanking our panelists. [applause]

and the book is available outside, and also for those of you who obviously are interested in these issues of youth inclusion in the middle east, please go to the website of the middle east peace initiative which is www.shabainclusion.org. and you'll find very interesting newspapers. s-h-a-b-a, right? www.shabainclusion.org. [inaudible conversations] ..